What do other members do that annoys you in a debate? I have recently noticed many annoying habits that seem to be spreading through DDO like a virus, and am curious if others agree, and in hearing what annoys other members. Here are some of my pet peeves:

I get annoyed...

...when people instigate debates with one word resolutions. For example: "Abortion". What about abortion? Should it be legal? Is it immoral? Is it murder? Clarification is always necessary in round 1 but c'mon, the title should give us something and makes things much more interesting.

...when people refer to Pro and Con as "the Pro" or "the Con". My screen name is Double_R. No one refers to me as "the Double_R".

When a member decides to make a fuss about one small point. For example,

"Wow again, Justcallmetarzan does not understand the rules do not grant him a space to argue. He fails to see that it was not him to present the argument. It was suppose to be mattrodstrom, doing the debating for Justcallmetarzans side. The very fact that you see justcallmetarzan presenting an argument is against the very rules as it was not suppose to be him debating at all. So, for conduct I would urge you to vote him down."

Two rounds spent on this little quibble.

BONUS: Who said this, and in what debate?

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

At 11/6/2011 2:32:41 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:1) Forfeiting2) Waiting till the last second to post3) Trolling the comments and/or debate4) Using semantics for easy wins.

I would actually have to disagree with 2 and 3. If people wait till the last second but don't forfeit, it shows that they are trying to make a serious effort despite being short on time, and that effort must be appreciated. I also think a good habit is to post something that your opponent can rebut that you can elaborate on in later rounds rather than a flat-out forfeit.

Posts in the comments section have always been a positive experience for me. Usually it is people who are interested in the topic that post in the comments. I have also had many helpful and friendly comments talking about their take on the topic, which is highly appreciated. More comments draw more attention to the debate.

I also post a lot of comments on debates that I find interesting or on debates by members that I know well and like and know their debates would be interesting. I don't think that it should be discouraged. I never had a negative experience with posting in the comments section.

Another thing is when people get strictly into a quote battle. replying to a quote is fine but when that is all you do it makes you A) look like an amateur, and B) makes it very hard to follow the arguments in the debate. As a reader you now have to go back and figure out what points were actually addressed and which ones were dropped, and just makes it uninteresting to read. I usually just move on to the nest one.

I also hate when people refer to their opponent as "you". We should be presenting arguments, not bickering them.

At 11/6/2011 2:06:43 PM, Man-is-good wrote:When a member decides to make a fuss about one small point. For example,

"Wow again, Justcallmetarzan does not understand the rules do not grant him a space to argue. He fails to see that it was not him to present the argument. It was suppose to be mattrodstrom, doing the debating for Justcallmetarzans side. The very fact that you see justcallmetarzan presenting an argument is against the very rules as it was not suppose to be him debating at all. So, for conduct I would urge you to vote him down."

Two rounds spent on this little quibble.

BONUS: Who said this, and in what debate?

I remember the debate. It was Izbo.

: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.

At 11/6/2011 2:17:18 PM, BlackVoid wrote:Dropping arguments and picking them up later.

There is nothing wrong with this. An argument doesnt disappear from the debate just because you failed to extend it through every round. If your opponent drops an argument then you should be all over it so that he has lost so much ground that picking it up later isnt an option.

Note that I am not talking about ignoring a point until the last round, new arguments in the final round are a different subject entirely.

At 11/6/2011 2:17:18 PM, BlackVoid wrote:Dropping arguments and picking them up later.

There is nothing wrong with this. An argument doesnt disappear from the debate just because you failed to extend it through every round. If your opponent drops an argument then you should be all over it so that he has lost so much ground that picking it up later isnt an option.

Note that I am not talking about ignoring a point until the last round, new arguments in the final round are a different subject entirely.

Agreed, but less experienced voters than you might forget those arguments.

At 11/6/2011 2:17:18 PM, BlackVoid wrote:Dropping arguments and picking them up later.

There is nothing wrong with this. An argument doesnt disappear from the debate just because you failed to extend it through every round. If your opponent drops an argument then you should be all over it so that he has lost so much ground that picking it up later isnt an option.

Note that I am not talking about ignoring a point until the last round, new arguments in the final round are a different subject entirely.

Agreed, but less experienced voters than you might forget those arguments.

For sure. Dont drop an argument unless it make strategic sense. Its generally bad practice but there isnt anything categorically wrong with it.

Vote-bombing is and always has been the most irritating debate habit on this site. Other than that, my top three are:

3. Over-stylizing text: Making a certain word or phrase stand out is one thing. However, when every piece of text in an argument is either bolded, italicized, or enlarged, it's an assault on the eyes.

2. Ignoring vote categories: Readers sometimes divvy up their votes based on the points each category assigns rather than the categories themselves. This practice both trivializes the efforts of both debaters to maintain solid arguments, proper grammar, etc. and reduces the voter's RFD to unsubstantiated bias.

1. Ultra-quoting: I just read a round of arguments and move on to the next, only to find the entire previous round has been quoted! If you are following along in a debate, quotes are unnecessary clutter. If you are not following along, you are not reading the debate in the first place.

"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

At 11/6/2011 8:46:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:Vote-bombing is and always has been the most irritating debate habit on this site. Other than that, my top three are:

3. Over-stylizing text: Making a certain word or phrase stand out is one thing. However, when every piece of text in an argument is either bolded, italicized, or enlarged, it's an assault on the eyes.

2. Ignoring vote categories: Readers sometimes divvy up their votes based on the points each category assigns rather than the categories themselves. This practice both trivializes the efforts of both debaters to maintain solid arguments, proper grammar, etc. and reduces the voter's RFD to unsubstantiated bias.

1. Ultra-quoting: I just read a round of arguments and move on to the next, only to find the entire previous round has been quoted! If you are following along in a debate, quotes are unnecessary clutter. If you are not following along, you are not reading the debate in the first place.

Agreed with 3 wholeheartedly. Stylizing is ridiculous. Bold for heading and italics for emphasis is really all we need. Underlining quotes is quite irritating and decreases readability. Minimal to moderate use of quotes is okay. As for 2, I believe it is justified to distribute points regardless of categories only on debates that are joke/rap/posting songs/funny videos/etc.

At 11/6/2011 2:17:18 PM, BlackVoid wrote:Dropping arguments and picking them up later.

There is nothing wrong with this. An argument doesnt disappear from the debate just because you failed to extend it through every round. If your opponent drops an argument then you should be all over it so that he has lost so much ground that picking it up later isnt an option.

Note that I am not talking about ignoring a point until the last round, new arguments in the final round are a different subject entirely.

Yeah thats what I was talking about. Person A drops a point, person B extends it, then person A refutes the original argument in the last speech. Completely unfair.

At 11/6/2011 8:46:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:Vote-bombing is and always has been the most irritating debate habit on this site. Other than that, my top three are:

3. Over-stylizing text: Making a certain word or phrase stand out is one thing. However, when every piece of text in an argument is either bolded, italicized, or enlarged, it's an assault on the eyes.

2. Ignoring vote categories: Readers sometimes divvy up their votes based on the points each category assigns rather than the categories themselves. This practice both trivializes the efforts of both debaters to maintain solid arguments, proper grammar, etc. and reduces the voter's RFD to unsubstantiated bias.

1. Ultra-quoting: I just read a round of arguments and move on to the next, only to find the entire previous round has been quoted! If you are following along in a debate, quotes are unnecessary clutter. If you are not following along, you are not reading the debate in the first place.

I'll sometimes quote the first sentence of the argument that I'm addressing, if my opponent did not break them into nice and easy bulletin points. Just to keep it organized.

At 11/6/2011 8:46:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:Vote-bombing is and always has been the most irritating debate habit on this site. Other than that, my top three are:

3. Over-stylizing text: Making a certain word or phrase stand out is one thing. However, when every piece of text in an argument is either bolded, italicized, or enlarged, it's an assault on the eyes.

2. Ignoring vote categories: Readers sometimes divvy up their votes based on the points each category assigns rather than the categories themselves. This practice both trivializes the efforts of both debaters to maintain solid arguments, proper grammar, etc. and reduces the voter's RFD to unsubstantiated bias.

1. Ultra-quoting: I just read a round of arguments and move on to the next, only to find the entire previous round has been quoted! If you are following along in a debate, quotes are unnecessary clutter. If you are not following along, you are not reading the debate in the first place.

Agreed with 3 wholeheartedly. Stylizing is ridiculous. Bold for heading and italics for emphasis is really all we need. Underlining quotes is quite irritating and decreases readability. Minimal to moderate use of quotes is okay. As for 2, I believe it is justified to distribute points regardless of categories only on debates that are joke/rap/posting songs/funny videos/etc.

At 11/6/2011 8:46:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:Vote-bombing is and always has been the most irritating debate habit on this site. Other than that, my top three are:

3. Over-stylizing text: Making a certain word or phrase stand out is one thing. However, when every piece of text in an argument is either bolded, italicized, or enlarged, it's an assault on the eyes.

2. Ignoring vote categories: Readers sometimes divvy up their votes based on the points each category assigns rather than the categories themselves. This practice both trivializes the efforts of both debaters to maintain solid arguments, proper grammar, etc. and reduces the voter's RFD to unsubstantiated bias.

1. Ultra-quoting: I just read a round of arguments and move on to the next, only to find the entire previous round has been quoted! If you are following along in a debate, quotes are unnecessary clutter. If you are not following along, you are not reading the debate in the first place.

I'll sometimes quote the first sentence of the argument that I'm addressing, if my opponent did not break them into nice and easy bulletin points. Just to keep it organized.

Occasional quoting is okay, especially if you're about to tear into the specific wording of your opponent or if his argument is buried in the depths of his round. The problem arises when the quoted material is as long as your own case or it occurs so frequently that it is difficult to separate your arguments from theirs.

I simply paraphrase the arguments I wish to attack. If there's a problem with the interpretation or your opponent denies his earlier claims, you drop a quote or two.

"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

At 11/6/2011 8:46:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:Vote-bombing is and always has been the most irritating debate habit on this site. Other than that, my top three are:

3. Over-stylizing text: Making a certain word or phrase stand out is one thing. However, when every piece of text in an argument is either bolded, italicized, or enlarged, it's an assault on the eyes.

2. Ignoring vote categories: Readers sometimes divvy up their votes based on the points each category assigns rather than the categories themselves. This practice both trivializes the efforts of both debaters to maintain solid arguments, proper grammar, etc. and reduces the voter's RFD to unsubstantiated bias.

1. Ultra-quoting: I just read a round of arguments and move on to the next, only to find the entire previous round has been quoted! If you are following along in a debate, quotes are unnecessary clutter. If you are not following along, you are not reading the debate in the first place.

Agreed with 3 wholeheartedly. Stylizing is ridiculous. Bold for heading and italics for emphasis is really all we need. Underlining quotes is quite irritating and decreases readability. Minimal to moderate use of quotes is okay. As for 2, I believe it is justified to distribute points regardless of categories only on debates that are joke/rap/posting songs/funny videos/etc.

Agreed.

"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

When someone uses an example of Jesus or something, and then the opponent goes on for the rest of the debate saying that the fact that Jesus' existence is "debatable". I don't mind this when its a debate about Jesus or religion of sort, but when your point is showing something like the influence it had on collapse of the Roman empire, or something along those lines, its just annoying that the opponent want you to "prove" that your point is valid, when it has nothing to do with Jesus in particular...

At 11/8/2011 3:48:43 PM, Mikeee wrote:When people choice to deny the fact that your sources are valid.

When someone uses an example of Jesus or something, and then the opponent goes on for the rest of the debate saying that the fact that Jesus' existence is "debatable". I don't mind this when its a debate about Jesus or religion of sort, but when your point is showing something like the influence it had on collapse of the Roman empire, or something along those lines, its just annoying that the opponent want you to "prove" that your point is valid, when it has nothing to do with Jesus in particular...

That would be known as a Red Herring, since really, it wasn't "Jesus" but his "influence" and his "followers." It is an attempt to pull you away for the real debate so that they can come back in the last round and say "my opponent never proved the resolution, he went off on some tangent [which I started, lol] and therefore you should all vote for me."